TIME INC. TO YIELD FILES ON SOURCES, RELENTING TO U.S.

By ADAM LIPTAK

Published: July 1, 2005

With one of its reporters facing an imminent jail sentence, Time magazine said yesterday that it would provide documents concerning the reporter's confidential sources to a grand jury investigating the disclosure of the identity of a covert C.I.A. operative, Valerie Plame.

The magazine's decision to give in to the demands of federal prosecutors followed the Supreme Court's decision on Monday to reject appeals by the magazine and its reporter, Matthew Cooper, as well as a reporter for The New York Times, Judith Miller.

The reporters could be sent to jail as early as Wednesday, but a Time executive said he hoped Time's action would spare Mr. Cooper.

In an interview, Norman Pearlstine, Time Inc.'s editor in chief, said he had made the decision after much reflection. ''I found myself really coming to the conclusion,'' Mr. Pearlstine said, ''that once the Supreme Court has spoken in a case involving national security and a grand jury, we are not above the law and we have to behave the way ordinary citizens do.'' [Page A14.]

The case represents the starkest confrontation between the press and the government since 1971, when the Supreme Court refused to stop The Times and The Washington Post from publishing a classified history of the Vietnam War known as the Pentagon Papers. And legal experts said yesterday that they knew of no other instance in modern journalistic history in which a major news organization announced that it would disclose the identities of its confidential sources in response to a government subpoena.

The press has traditionally argued that it needs to be able to protect confidential sources to ensure that the public is fully informed. Some courts have recently rejected that position outright. Other have said that the interest in the flow of information to the public in given cases was outweighed by the needs of the judicial system for evidence.

On Wednesday, Judge Thomas F. Hogan of Federal District Court in Washington said he would order the reporters jailed for up to 120 days if they did not agree to testify before the grand jury in the meantime. He also said he would impose substantial fines on the magazine.

The magazine made its decision over the objections of its reporter.

''For almost two years,'' Mr. Cooper said yesterday, ''I've protected my confidential sources even under the threat of jail. So while I understand Time's decision to turn over papers that identify my sources, I'm obviously disappointed by what they chose.''

The documents to be turned over to the special prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, include Mr. Cooper's notes of interviews and ''the ordinary work product that is typical of the interaction that takes place between reporters and editors,'' Mr. Pearlstine said. He said Time had not decided how the transfer would happen but said the documents would not be made public by Time.

The move may have consequences for Mr. Cooper.

''My hope,'' Mr. Pearlstine said, ''is that the special counsel concludes that he does not need Matt's testimony and does not need his incarceration.''

It is less clear whether the magazine's decision will affect Ms. Miller, but one of her lawyers, Robert S. Bennett, said it might help her.

''I hope that Time's disclosure will eliminate the need for Judy's testimony and that this crisis can be ended,'' Mr. Bennett said.

Ms. Miller declined to comment yesterday, as did a spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald.

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of The Times, was critical of Time. ''We are deeply disappointed by Time Inc.'s decision to deliver the subpoenaed records,'' Mr. Sulzberger said. ''We faced similar pressures in 1978 when both our reporter Myron Farber and the Times Company were held in contempt of court for refusing to provide the names of confidential sources. Mr. Farber served 40 days in jail and we were forced to pay significant fines.

''Our focus is now on our own reporter, Judith Miller, and in supporting her during this difficult time.''

Mr. Pearlstine said that ''responsible news organizations can have different opinions.'' But he added, ''If I were The New York Times in 1978 I would have turned over the information.''

Mr. Farber refused to supply his notes to a doctor on trial in New Jersey on charges that he killed patients by injecting them with curare. The doctor, Mario Jascalevich, was acquitted. Mr. Farber, now retired, recalled the efforts he and the paper had made to protect his notes, which reflected conversations with confidential sources.

''The Times, at my request, I think it was, relinquished control of the notes to me,'' he said. ''I took responsibility for protecting them, and I did protect them. I divvied them up and hid them all over the region in a variety of places.''

A judge in the case, Theodore W. Trautwein, called The Times's position a charade and held it in both civil and criminal contempt.

The Times paid fines of $286,000. In the aftermath, New Jersey tightened its shield law, which is one of the strongest in the nation. In January 1982, Mr. Farber and The Times were pardoned for the criminal contempt charges by Gov. Brendan T. Byrne, and $101,000 in fines was returned.

Time's decision yesterday to turn over documents in the face of fines troubled some legal experts.